YRASUEGUI VS. PHILIPPINE AIRLINES G.R. No.

168081, October 17, 2008

FACTS: THIS case portrays the peculiar story of an international flight steward who was dismissed because of his failure
to adhere to the weight standards of the airline company.

The proper weight for a man of his height and body structure is from 147 to 166 pounds, the ideal weight being 166
pounds, as mandated by the Cabin and Crew Administration Manual of PAL.

In 1984, the weight problem started, which prompted PAL to send him to an extended vacation until November 1985.
He was allowed to return to work once he lost all the excess weight. But the problem recurred. He again went on leave
without pay from October 17, 1988 to February 1989.

Despite the lapse of a ninety-day period given him to reach his ideal weight, petitioner remained overweight. On January
3, 1990, he was informed of the PAL decision for him to remain grounded until such time that he satisfactorily complies
with the weight standards. Again, he was directed to report every two weeks for weight checks, which he failed to
comply with.

On April 17, 1990, petitioner was formally warned that a repeated refusal to report for weight checks would be dealt
with accordingly. He was given another set of weight check dates, which he did not report to.

On November 13, 1992, PAL finally served petitioner a Notice of Administrative Charge for violation of company
standards on weight requirements. Petitioner insists that he is being discriminated as those similarly situated were not
treated the same.

On December 7, 1992, petitioner submitted his Answer. Notably, he did not deny being overweight. What he claimed, instead,
is that his violation, if any, had already been condoned by PAL since "no action has been taken by the company" regarding his
case "since 1988." He also claimed that PAL discriminated against him because "the company has not been fair in treating
the cabin crew members who are similarly situated."

On December 8, 1992, a clarificatory hearing was held where petitioner manifested that he was undergoing a weight
reduction program to lose at least two (2) pounds per week so as to attain his ideal weight.

On June 15, 1993, petitioner was formally informed by PAL that due to his inability to attain his ideal weight, “and
considering the utmost leniency” extended to him “which spanned a period covering a total of almost five (5) years,”
his services were considered terminated “effective immediately.”

His motion for reconsideration having been denied, petitioner filed a complaint for illegal dismissal against PAL.

LABOR ARBITER: Held that the weight standards of PAL are reasonable in view of the nature of the job of petitioner.
However, the weight standards need not be complied with under pain of dismissal since his weight did not hamper the
performance of his duties.

NLRC affirmed. According to the NLRC, "obesity, or the tendency to gain weight uncontrollably regardless of the amount of
food intake, is a disease in itself. As a consequence, there can be no intentional defiance or serious misconduct by petitioner
to the lawful order of PAL for him to lose weight.”

PAL moved for reconsideration to no avail. Thus, PAL elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals (CA)

COURT OF APPEALS: Contrary to the NLRC ruling, the weight standards of PAL are meant to be a continuing qualification for
an employee’s position. The failure to adhere to the weight standards is an analogous cause for the dismissal of an employee
under Article 282(e) of the Labor Code in relation to Article 282(a). It is not willful disobedience as the NLRC seemed to
suggest. The relevant question to ask is not one of willfulness but one of reasonableness of the standard and whether or not
the employee qualifies or continues to qualify under this standard.

The weight standards of PAL are reasonable. Thus, petitioner was legally dismissed because he repeatedly failed to meet
the prescribed weight standards. It is obvious that the issue of discrimination was only invoked by petitioner for
purposes of escaping the result of his dismissal for being overweight.

On May 10, 2005, the CA denied petitioner’s motion for reconsideration. Elaborating on its earlier ruling, the CA held that the
weight standards of PAL are a bona fide occupational qualification which, in case of violation, "justifies an employee’s
separation from the service."

ISSUES:

I. WON Obesity is a ground for dismissal

II. WON Petitioner was discriminated when he was dismissed while other overweight cabin attendants were either given flying
duties or promoted

HELD:

1. FIRST ISSUE ANENT THE VALIDITY OF THE CAUSE OF DISMISSAL. – The obesity of petitioner is a ground for
dismissal under Article 282(e) of the Labor Code.

A reading of the weight standards of PAL would lead to no other conclusion than that they constitute a continuing
qualification of an employee in order to keep the job. The dismissal of the employee would thus fall under Article
282(e) of the Labor Code.

In the case at bar, the evidence on record militates against petitioner’s claims that obesity is a disease. That he was able
to reduce his weight from 1984 to 1992 clearly shows that it is possible for him to lose weight given the proper attitude,
determination, and self-discipline. Indeed, during the clarificatory hearing on December 8, 1992, petitioner himself
claimed that “[t]he issue is could I bring my weight down to ideal weight which is 172, then the answer is yes. I can do it
now.”

Petitioner has only himself to blame. He could have easily availed the assistance of the company physician, per the
advice of PAL.

In fine, the court held that the obesity of petitioner, when placed in the context of his work as flight attendant,
becomes an analogous cause under Article 282(e) of the Labor Code that justifies his dismissal from the service. His
obesity may not be unintended, but is nonetheless voluntary. As the CA correctly puts it, “[v]oluntariness basically
means that the just cause is solely attributable to the employee without any external force influencing or controlling his
actions. This element runs through all just causes under Article 282, whether they be in the nature of a wrongful action
or omission. Gross and habitual neglect, a recognized just cause, is considered voluntary although it lacks the element of
intent found in Article 282(a), (c), and (d).”

2. SEC III. Petitioner failed to substantiate his claim that he was discriminated against by PAL.

Petitioner next claims that PAL is using passenger safety as a convenient excuse to discriminate against him. The Court is
constrained, however, to hold otherwise.

Since the burden of evidence lies with the party who asserts an affirmative allegation, petitioner has to prove his
allegation with particularity. There is nothing on the records which could support the finding of discriminatory
treatment. Petitioner cannot establish discrimination by simply naming the supposed cabin attendants who are allegedly
similarly situated with him. Substantial proof must be shown as to how and why they are similarly situated and the
differential treatment petitioner got from PAL despite the similarity of his situation with other employees.

To make his claim more believable, petitioner invokes the equal protection clause guaranty of the Constitution. (ALERT: This
could be the answer to Atty. AVL’s question na “Why was this case assigned?) However, in the absence of governmental
interference, the liberties guaranteed by the Constitution cannot be invoked. Put differently, the Bill of Rights is not
meant to be invoked against acts of private individuals. Indeed, the United States Supreme Court, in interpreting the
Fourteenth Amendment, which is the source of our equal protection guarantee, is consistent in saying that the equal
protection erects no shield against private conduct, however discriminatory or wrongful. Private actions, no matter how
egregious, cannot violate the equal protection guarantee.

ADDITIONAL NOTES:

The dismissal of petitioner can be predicated on the bona fide occupational qualification defense. Employment in
particular jobs may not be limited to persons of a particular sex, religion, or national origin unless the employer can
show that sex, religion, or national origin is an actual qualification for performing the job. The qualification is called a
bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ). In short, the test of reasonableness of the company policy is used because
it is parallel to BFOQ. BFOQ is valid “provided it reflects an inherent quality reasonably necessary for satisfactory job
performance.”

The business of PAL is air transportation. As such, it has committed itself to safely transport its passengers. In order to
achieve this, it must necessarily rely on its employees, most particularly the cabin flight deck crew who are on board the
aircraft. The weight standards of PAL should be viewed as imposing strict norms of discipline upon its employees.

The primary objective of PAL in the imposition of the weight standards for cabin crew is flight safety.

Separation pay, however, should be awarded in favor of the employee as an act of social justice or based on equity. This
is so because his dismissal is not for serious misconduct. Neither is it reflective of his moral character.